Employers sift applications by university ranking

[Ironoaks]

[[BBC News - Job applications 'filtered by university ranking'
www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-49728941]]

This contradicts the advice I sometimes see on Mumsnet stating that employers are blind to the institution and only sift on degree classification.

@ErrolTheDragon that’s what I thought, that Bath, Lancaster, St Andrews were in a confident doing their, not needing the RG brand. They’re excellent Universities not interested in RG and their reputations are known by employers. But this thread seems to insinuate that might not be the case.

“Were confident doing their own thing”

Here's a list of the 15 UK universities appear in the Global University Employability Ranking 2018 - out of 250 universities globally that recruiters at top companies think are the best at preparing students for the workplace.

www.timeshighereducation.com/student/best-universities/graduate-employability-top-universities-uk-ranked-employers-2018

It includes Bath and St Andrew’s. And given its only 15 clearly doesn't include all the RG group.

It's just another version of the old school tie. Got to keep the riff-raff out, don't you know?

Most people just say 'Russell Group' to mean 'a university I personally approve of' - they very rarely could actually reel off the whole list of Russell Group universities to know exactly who is in and whose out. I would struggle, and I work in the sector. Most people would have thought York and Durham were RG long before they actually were (2012), and their students have never had a problem getting employed. Meanwhile, while very strong in some areas, Queen Mary London isn't most people's idea of a RG in terms of its student intake or profile.

Most people just say 'Russell Group' to mean 'a university I personally approve of'
I disagree. It's more commonly used inaccurately as a catch all term for well ranked and well regarded universities that are respected for their research and academic merit.
The point being that some universities are more academic and research driven than others, they take on a more academically able cohort and in turn they are well regarded as the graduates who leave are more appealing.

If the employers which use filters are using league tables rather than RG then I'd bet they're using something like QS or times and not the Guardian.

www.timeshighereducation.com/student/best-universities/best-universities-uk#survey-answer

The Times puts Lancaster at 18 - snug between Durham and Exeter.

QS rankings has St. Andrews at 18, Lancaster at 20 and bath at 25.

Forgot link
www.topuniversities.com/university-rankings-articles/world-university-rankings/top-universities-uk-2020

I work for a highly desirable company and do lots of recruitment. I genuinely don't care which uni anyone went to. Or their courses/grades. Much more interested in their skills, interests and recent work experience.

It's more commonly used inaccurately as a catch all term for well ranked and well regarded universities that are respected for their research and academic merit.

I agree that people use it to mean what they consider to be well-ranked universities with respected research and high academic standards. However, that's normally based on very old knowledge and very shallow judgements - it's not like most people can start reeling off REF rankings or current league table positions. So it tends to be a very vague idea of 'reputation', which is what I meant by 'a university that I personally approve of'.

It's not perfect, but there's a reason why the highly regarded universities are highly regarded. Reputation does matter and isn't based on nothing. I'm not too bothered by people not looking at REF each time it comes out. On the whole people know the strong universities. There'll be some that move but on the whole there's something to be said for the test of time.

If anyone chooses to go to low ranking Townsville University that takes anyone under the impression that what they're studying is as well regarded and has the same academic merit as Top University then it only shows further that they aren't that smart.

I work for a highly desirable company and do lots of recruitment. I genuinely don't care which uni anyone went to. Or their courses/grades. Much more interested in their skills, interests and recent work experience.

Annoyingly, I now can't find one of his posts with it in, but 'Doones', a regular ('grown up') poster over on TSR has linked several times to data indicating that the bast majority of employers - and there are more of them out there than just top law firms etc - totally share this view.

More fool them, of course...

If an employer isn’t bothered about university attended, course or grades and holds a recruitment role then one assumes they are not looking for graduates in particular. A prospective employee with some skills, interests and recent work experience suggests a slightly older employee. Most employers want educational attainment and are willing to train on the job.

Of course university, course and grades matter to most employers. They may also assume a strong work ethic if the applicant has a degree from a highly regarded university in their field, RG or not. Interests? Do they matter? Recent work experience isn’t always possible but most grads will learn quickly and knuckle down even if they went travelling post degree. Sometimes a little bit of fun is allowed.

Most people do realise a few non RG universities are world class. But not all can aspire to this. It makes accurate advice even more important.

@ErrolTheDragon Thanks for all the links, very interesting. I’ve seen them before but looking at them differently now.
Like one previous poster also said, it’s not just about the university but also the work experience, volunteering, societies that the individual has participated in. All goes to showing them as a capable individual.

Loga (and BB) are right.

Howevre it will depend on the job. My son drives a supermarket delivery van. His clean driving licence is his core skill (I presume along with an ability to read and fact he is never sick and always on time and physically strong), not his degree. His sisters are London lawyers - that is very competitive and employers are looking for different things (AAB or more, 2/1 etc etc).

So look at the job you want and work backwards when choosing a university.

Of course work experience and internship are important. Unfortunately (or fortunately for many, I guess) RG University confers additional benefits over and above having a strong research base.
You are more likely to attend a RG if you are already privileged.
That privilege confers a greater likelihood of better work experience, interests and social skills pre university.
At university your network grows and you are more likely to make contacts who can offer greater opportunities throughout university years. The university may well offer more exciting and interesting year abroad type opportunities and access to internships.
You come out of university with a strong degree, a list of useful contacts and a cv that shows interesting activities/work experience. You also have access to employers actively recruiting from certain universities. If you’re one of the privileged ones, it sets you up very nicely for a comfortable adulthood.

www.suttontrust.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/AccesstoAdvantage-2018.pdf

I'm somewhat dumbfounded by the notion implicit in a post upthread that there might not generally be a strong correlation between uni course and relevant skills, in the specific context of graduate employment.

Bath, Lancaster and Loughborough are all in the top 10 in the Complete University Guide. Only Russell Group snobs think they are lesser universities. To be honest, unless a student is studying a science, research heavy subject I doubt that they care if the university is research heavy anyway.

For vocational subjects that are accredited by professional bodies I think being at an RG university is less important. I suspect that in very popular subjects like law, history, geography, English etc it may be more important where you go.

I read somewhere that the only subject where there is no shortage of teachers is history because many students take history because they don't know what they really want to do. I am happy to be corrected on this though.

the only subject where there is no shortage of teachers is history because many students take history because they don't know what they really want to do

I took history because I was considering doing industrial archaeology after, and history is one of the degrees they'd have accepted. Also, it's a nice interdisciplinary subject and I was always an all-rounder. (I didn't do industrial archaeology, because I needed to earn money.)

I'm not sure that's a fair comment on history as a degree.
Many arts/social science students take them more for interest than specific careers (and many science graduates actually go into grad schemes not science).

History and PE tend to be oversubscribed for teacher training because they good if you enjoy your subject and want to teach it but you don't get as much crap as English/Maths/Science etc.

When I've been recruiting I have put people from the likes of Middlesex uni in the notional reject pile unless they have great work experience (meaning actual work since graduation, not placements at uni).

But I also notice if someone has gone to a private school and will also reject them if they don't have great work experience.

So it works both ways. After the first couple of years work experience is far more important. Someone who is academic may be rubbish in the workplace. I knew someone who had an average degree from an average uni and she was much better at our job than I was, although I had a good degree from what is now a RG uni. So skills are more important than qualifications for me.

If this were true JP Morgan, the Bank of England, and Goldman Sachs wouldn’t take Open University students, but they do. In droves

If anyone chooses to go to low ranking Townsville University that takes anyone under the impression that what they're studying is as well regarded and has the same academic merit as Top University then it only shows further that they aren't that smart

It really does depend on the subject. Oxbridge aren't great for all subjects. As an example I was looking at the sports journalism course at Leeds Trinity yesterday which people would decry as a Mickey Mouse uni. The course looks really interesting though with integrated work experience and has decent post-degree employment figures.

I also notice if someone has gone to a private school and will also reject them if they don't have great work experience.

Do you also do the same for grammar school applicants or those who have been tutored privately?

Berlinbabylon
That assumes that most people in journalism do a specialist subject journalism degree.

It may be an interesting course with placements, but would it be held as valuable as someone whose done a related subject at a higher university, got a higher academic standard, done lots of students journalism and work experience? Probably not.